The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Experimentation in the Formation of Edge Damage: A New Approach to Lithic Analysis
Abstract
The paper describes a series of experiments recently carried out to test the formation of edge-damage on flaked stone tools which results from their being used in various tasks. Variables that were systematically tested include action, worked material, angle of the edge, and grip. The main criterion in distinguishing different patterns of damage was microflaking rather than abrasion in the form of striations and polish.The results of these experiments may be applied to the identification of patterns of damage to the edges of prehistoric stone tools. The information gained from such microwear analysis may be used not only to provide details on the activities and settlement organization of prehistoric societies, but also to provide an important new dimension to lithic analysis in general. In lithic analysis, the main criteria of change have been the macromorphological features of the tools. It is our contention, however, that the additional information on the function of the tools, which is provided by microwear analysis, can contribute to the greater understanding of the processes of change in lithic assemblages and culture change as a whole.The experimental program was designed to test the formation of edge-damage on implements manufactured in European chalk flint. It was to aid in the identification of wear patterns on lithic assemblages from the neolithic period in Central and Eastern Europe, a project in which the authors were involved. Its relevance, however, includes directly those assemblages of the post-Pleistocene period in temperate and Mediterranean Europe. The results of the experiments may also be useful, it is hoped, for lithic analysis in general, both in the Old and New World.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Toward the Identification of Formation Processes
Schiffer, M. B. (1983) · American Antiquity · doi:10.2307/279771 · Cited by 580
Evidence for Early Hafted Hunting Technology
Wilkins, J., Schoville, B. J., Brown, K. S., & Chazan, M. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1227608 · Cited by 406
The earliest evidence for mechanically delivered projectile weapons in Europe
Sano, K., Arrighi, S., Stani, C., Aureli, D., Boschin, F., Fiore, I., Spagnolo, V., Ricci, S., Crezzini, J., Boscato, P., et al. (2019) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-019-0990-3 · Cited by 90
Use-Wear Analysis of Nonflint Lithic Raw Materials: The Cases of Quartz/Quartzite and Obsidian
Clemente Conte, I., Lazuén Fernández, T., Astruc, L., & Rodríguez Rodríguez, A. C. (2015) · Manuals in Archaeological Method, Theory and Technique · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-08257-8_5 · Cited by 54
Richter, T. (2007) · Levant · doi:10.1179/lev.2007.39.1.97 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Tringham, R., Cooper, G., Odell, G., Voytek, B., & Whitman, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Field Archaeology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1974-01
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 171-196
- ISSN
- 0093-4690 (ISSN-L)
- 2042-4582
- OpenAlex
- W2009012770
- Cited by
- 471
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 50.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Experimentation in the Formation of Edge Damage: A New Approach to Lithic Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1179/jfa.1974.1.1-2.171
- The paper
- Tringham, R., Cooper, G., Odell, G., Voytek, B., & Whitman, A. (1974). Experimentation in the Formation of Edge Damage: A New Approach to Lithic Analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology. https://doi.org/10.1179/jfa.1974.1.1-2.171
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.